Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 448

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A randomised prospective comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding after acute dysphagic stroke

Open access
Norton, B, Homer-Ward, M, Donnelly, M T, Long, R G, Holmes, G K T·1996·BMJ

Abstract

Objective : To compare percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding after acute dysphagic stroke. Design : Randomised prospective study of inpatients with acute stroke requiring enteral nutrition. Setting : One university hospital (Nottingham) and one district general hospital (Derby). Subjects : 30 patients with persisting dysphagia at 14 days after acute stroke: 16 patients were randomised to gastrostomy tube feeding and 14 to nasogastric tube feeding. Main outcome measures : Six week mortality; amount of feed administered; change in nutritional state; treatment failure; and length of hospital stay. Results : Mortality at 6 weeks was significantly lower in the gastrostomy group with two deaths (12%) compared with eight deaths (57%) in the nasogastric group (P<0.05). All gastrostomy fed patients (16) received the total prescribed feed whereas 10/14 (71%) of nasogastric patients lost at least one day's feed. Nasogastric patients received a significantly (P<0.001) smaller proportion of their prescribed feed (78%; 95% confidence interval 63% to 94%) compared with the gastrostomy group (100%). Patients fed via a gastrostomy tube showed greater improvement in nutritional state, according to several different criteria at six weeks compared with the nasogastric group. In the gastrostomy group the mean albumin concentration increased from 27.1 g/l (24.5 g/l to 29.7 g/l) to 30.1 g/l (28.3 g/l to 31.9 g/l). In contrast, among the nasogastric group there was a reduction from 31.4 g/l (28.6 g/l to 34.2 g/l) to 22.3 g/l (20.7 g/l to 23.9 g/l) (P<0.003). In addition, there were fewer treatment failures in the gastrostomy group (0/16 versus 3/14). Six patients from the gastrostomy group were discharged from hospital within six weeks of the procedure compared with none from the nasogastric group (P<0.05). Conclusion : This study indicates that early gastrostomy tube feeding is greatly superior to nasogastric tube feeding and should be the nutritional treatment of choice for patients with acute dysphagic stroke. Key messages: Key messages Patients fed through a gastrostomy are more likely to receive more of their prescribed feed and show a greater improvement in nutritional state Gastrostomy tube feeding is associated with fewer treatment failures Patients fed through a gastrostomy are more likely to be discharged earlier from hospital Gastrostomy feeding is superior to nasogastric tube feeding after acute dysphagic stroke

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.312.7022.13

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 448

Metadata

Authors
Norton, B., Homer-Ward, M., Donnelly, M. T., Long, R. G., & Holmes, G. K. T.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1996-01-06
Volume
312
Issue
7022
Pages
13-16
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2027482573
Cited by
448
References
0
FWCI
93.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A randomised prospective comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding after acute dysphagic stroke. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.312.7022.13
The paper
Norton, B., Homer-Ward, M., Donnelly, M. T., Long, R. G., & Holmes, G. K. T. (1996). A randomised prospective comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding after acute dysphagic stroke. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7022.13

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.